SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 24000

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R RAGHUNANDAN RAO,MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
GURAJALA VENKATA MADHAVI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF AP – Respondent
WA 29/2025



APHC010016312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3508]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT APPEAL NO: 29/2025 Between:

Gurajala Venkata Madhavi and Others ...APPELLANT(S)

AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

1. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KISHORE KUMAR KATARI

2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Judgment:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

This Writ Appeal is filed, against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 27.11.2024, dismissing the Writ Petition, on the ground that, the writ petitioners had suppressed the fact that, a complaint had been registered against the writ petitioners and that a quash petition filed against the said complaint had been disposed of with a direction to the authorities to continue investigation without initiating any coercive steps against the writ petitioners.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that, the said omission of such facts, in the Writ Petition, was not intentional and in any event, the relief sought in the present Writ Petition is different. It is the case of the appellants that, pattas granted to the appellants, which were found to be genuine by the Tahsildar, had been revoked and the land is said to be allotted to the third parties, which is arbitrary and violative of the rights of the appellants.

3. While, the appellants may or may not have a case requiring the interference of this Court, it is settled law that this Court will not help those, who approach this Court by way of suppression of facts.

4. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J WRIT APPEAL No:29 of 2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top